ACQNET v2n042 (March 25, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n042 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 42, March 25, 1992 ====================================== (1) FROM: Jian Liu SUBJECT: Acquisitions profession (22 lines) (2) FROM: Carmen Socknat SUBJECT: Purchase requests (33 lines) (3) FROM: Clarice Luce SUBJECT: Purchase requests (15 lines) (4) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Purchase requests (16 lines) (5) FROM: Pamela Rose SUBJECT: Purchase requests (24 lines) (6) FROM: Ron Ray SUBJECT: Purchase requests (45 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 00:55 EST From: Jian Liu Subject: How do you perceive yourselves, metaphorically? Enough, and sometimes I feel more than enough, has been said, in official documents or professional articles and books, about the function and the position of the acquisition department in a library, or the responsibilities of an acquisitions librarian. But how do you define yourselves, I mean, metaphorically? If I ask you to fill in the blank in "An acquisitions librarian is like ________," you would have to think of yourselves in terms of more concrete -- and hence more revealing and interesting -- things. Besides, you would not be able to cover the complete spectrum of your profession, but have to highlight certain aspects of your job, which you think are the most crucial and characteristic of what you are doing, at the expense of some less important aspects. I also understand there are many more specific responsibilities within an acquisition department, and each acquisitions librarian is a unique individual. So I am expecting a great variety of things that can fill the little (or should I say big?) blank above. Anyone want to give it a try? (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 09:58:23 -0500 From: Carmen Socknat Subject: Purchase requests With regards to Rosann Bazirjian's discussion of selector slips, we have solved our problem to some extent by using an adaptation of a vendor service. Let me first backtrack by saying that Victoria University is a small institution. The library has a moderate budget and the acquisitions staff consists of myself and two technicians. This gives me a lot of flexibility to try new ideas, but my solutions would obviously not be appropriate for everyone. When I first came here four years ago, all selections were typed by the readers services staff (often student help) onto selection slips. This was very time consuming and meant that there was always a _Choice_ or some other selection tool waiting for slips to be made. Once the searching of the slips began, many would be discarded because they were already on order (we use the BIB-BASE acquisitions software). Because this was such a waste of time, but it was still felt by acquisitions staff that the slips were convenient and useful in keeping a history of the search and order process, a compromise was created. We use our electronic ordering service to print the slips for us, using an inquire only mode and the isbn. This has worked well, saving time for readers services. We have simply incorporated this step as part of the searching process, eliminating duplicates before they even get to the printing stage. Despite the administration's ideal of a totally paperless ordering process, we find the slips to be very handy and portable. My question to other librarians who are using a totally automated, integrated system (which we will be getting within the next few months in the form of DRA's system) is whether they still record search information on these paper slips or if all relevant information on the searching and ordering process is located solely on the record in the database. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 15:19 CDT From: Clarice Luce Subject: Purchase requests The University of North Texas has required the faculty to submit orders on 4" X 5" order request cards for years. We supply the departments with the cards along with the instructions for filling them out and we have very little problem getting the majority of the faculty to comply. The last couple of years we have loosened our requirements and will accept marked catalogs, lists, etc.; however, we do not publicize that fact. We make it a point to stress that since our staff is very limited, it will delay their orders considerably if we have to work from non-standard forms. I am sure that in the future as more of our processes are automated, we will accept E-mail requests. At this point it is more efficient for our department it we can continue to get faculty to use the request cards. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 08:49:59 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Stevens Subject: Purchase requests Rosann Bazirjian's questions are good ones. I'd like to be able to--as she does--accept purchase requests in any format but I'm not staffed or organized to do so at present and maintain our high output levels. We accept purchase requests on-line (having trained 38 staff in 23 library units to input on-line via Geac acquisitions), plus on our standard purchase request form, on OCLC and on-line catalog printouts, on a variety of approval selection forms, plus several other formats. About 75% of our purchase requests arrive in Acquisitions in a format other than our standard form. Within another year or so, I hope to be able to accept requests in any format. Trying to force selectors to stick to a single format for Acquisitions convenience does not seem like the kind of service I would want if I were a selector. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 09:25 EST From: Pamela Rose Subject: Purchase requests In response to Rosann's question about purchase requests: at SUNY at Buffalo Health Sciences Library, we use a standardized form developed from the order screen on our NOTIS system. The form doubles as a Book Request Form used in public areas. We do accept requests in any format, however, before we begin processing we transfer the information to the form. We've assessed the value of this task many times over the last 7 years that we have been automated, first on an in-house dBASE system, and now on NOTIS, and have concluded that it is well worth the effort. It facilitates batch processing, makes it easier for a less-trained individual to enter the finished order, and the same size forms don't get lost as easily in our files. We keep all the original material stapled to the form in a file organized by month, for several years, in case we need to refer back to it. We have changed the form a number of times, and I will be revising it again soon. I've now decided to remove the in-house only field boxes to a separate form which we can staple to the back of the Book Request Form to make the public use form cleaner and simpler. I'll be glad to fax copies of the current form to anyone who would like to see it. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1992 10:59 EST From: Ron L. Ray Subject: Purchase requests We recently made the shift from requiring standard order forms to encouraging selectors to submit as requests their original sources for identifying titles--catalogs, brochures, photocopies of BCL pages, database printouts, even napkins, if that's what a faculty member hands them across the lunch table. The idea is to be working from the same sources as the selectors, so as to have a better idea of what it is they're asking for and to avoid losing relevant information in the request submission process. Rosann is right that the multifarious order requests slow down search/order productivity: for instance, having to flip through pages of _Choice_ to locate the titles being requested; not being able to make neat little bundles of requests sorted by selector or fund code at the order entry terminal. But what we lose in search/order entry staff productivity, I believe we more than make up for in the productivity of higher level staff, who are freed from solving as many problems with order requests lacking key pieces of information, however neatly they are transcribed onto 3x5 forms. Particularly for gray literature, not likely to be in bibliographic resources, where as much as the publisher name, we need addresses, etc. But even for more mainstream publications, catalogs and brochures often provide helpful information that the selector won't even recognize as important, let alone take the time to tran- scribe or key into an electronic format. "Enforcing standardized requests"?--who has ever succeeded in enforcing procedures with collection development librarians? The selectors I've worked with have many virtues, but the inclination to follow detailed procedures is not one of them. And in terms of overall productivity, it's more costly to have collection development librarians spend their time transcribing (as a class, their atrocious handwriting rivals that of doctors) or keying (unlike my order staff, they don't include typing speeds on their resumes) bibliographic information than it is to leave it to the order entry staff. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 42 ****** END OF FILE *******